Let's not make blanket statements or anything.
It's almost as though different rational people of good will disagree about moral matters.
> the practice of allowing brutal murderers and rapists to live out their lives and die in peace
Unless I'm misreading you, that's a huge misrepresentation of what death penalty abolitionists advocate. I don't want violent criminals to have zero repercussions for their actions, and no present-day society I've ever heard of allows them to.
But I agree with (what I perceive to be your greater) point about differences in personal moral code. I was merely speaking contextually about the general trend Western society has followed for the past few centuries -- like fewer, more lenient punishments and more respect for civil rights, among others.
I'm hesitant to do so in the case of moral arguments, though I find the case in favour of the death penalty, particularly given the many, many abuses, and utter and final nature, phenomenally weak.
That said, I disagree with the HN hive-mind's obliterating your comment.